Gary Childress wrote:Few people (dare I hope?) are [insert serial killer name here] who kill others because they just want to kill people.
I don't know what they would think they are joining the military for then. Being a deluded idiot is no excuse.
Regarding your poll, are they the only choices you have?
Gary Childress wrote:Few people (dare I hope?) are [insert serial killer name here] who kill others because they just want to kill people.
I don't know what they would think they are joining the military for then. Being a deluded idiot is no excuse.
Regarding your poll, are they the only choices you have?
They join the military because they think they are fighting terrorists like the one who recently went on a shooting spree in Orlando at a nightclub for gays or the attacks in Paris a few months back. You probably wouldn't believe how many fellow Americans I have spoken to who truly believe that they are fighting a just war to defend our loved ones from immanent attack at any moment. Truly.
Gary Childress wrote:
They join the military because they think they are fighting terrorists like the one who recently went on a shooting spree in Orlando at a nightclub for gays or the attacks in Paris a few months back. You probably wouldn't believe how many fellow Americans I have spoken to who truly believe that they are fighting a just war to defend our loved ones from immanent attack at any moment. Truly.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Regarding your poll, are they the only choices you have?
Yes. Believe it or not we have a two party system in the US whereby voters are pretty much presented with two established choices. Voting outside that is called voting for a "third party". "Third party" candidates are lucky if they get 5% of the total vote in a presidential elections. The poll is abbreviated to keep the # of choices more manageable. We have too many third party candidates to list in the poll so I just chose one option to represent them all.
Last edited by Gary Childress on Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gary Childress wrote:
They join the military because they think they are fighting terrorists like the one who recently went on a shooting spree in Orlando at a nightclub for gays or the attacks in Paris a few months back. You probably wouldn't believe how many fellow Americans I have spoken to who truly believe that they are fighting a just war to defend our loved ones from immanent attack at any moment. Truly.
Then they are morons.
OK. Is calling them "morons" going to help the situation or is it going to cause people to be defensive and throw up barriers and not listen?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Regarding your poll, are they the only choices you have?
Yes. Believe it or not we have a two party system in the US whereby voters are pretty much presented with two established choices. Voting outside that is called voting for a "third party". Third party candidates are lucky if they get 5% of the total vote in a presidential election. The poll is abbreviated to keep the # of choices more manageable. We have too many third party candidates to list in the poll so I just chose one option to represent them all.
I know that, but you only mentioned Hillary and Trump. (I got the threads mixed up).
Gary Childress wrote:
They join the military because they think they are fighting terrorists like the one who recently went on a shooting spree in Orlando at a nightclub for gays or the attacks in Paris a few months back. You probably wouldn't believe how many fellow Americans I have spoken to who truly believe that they are fighting a just war to defend our loved ones from immanent attack at any moment. Truly.
Then they are morons.
OK. Is calling them "morons" going to help the situation or is it going to cause people to be defensive and throw up barriers and not listen?
It's not my fault if it happens to be true. It's better than calling them 'heroes' when they've done nothing to earn it.
As it is framed here, it's not even a philosophical question. A behaviour is unethical if it conflicts with the observer's code of ethics. Specify the code and the answer is a matter of careful jurisprudence*; leave the code unspecified and the question is incomplete and has no answer. If we assume that we all agree on the code of ethics we should all be following, then of course that provides the context in which the question has an answer. However, anyone who has taken Philosophy:101 well knows that there is no such agreement.
Nevertheless, there are questions raised in the OP that admit to philosophical treatment. The question asked in the body of the post; "Is it unethical for white people to openly identify themselves as white?" appears to be a subtly different question from that posed in the title of the thread; "Is "White Pride" unethical?". Is it possible to identify yourself as a member of a group without expressing pride in the group? I think it is possible. What then is the connection that the OP is trying to make between these two questions, and does it succeed in posing the ethical problem it appears to be trying to pose?
*Philosophers are naturally good at jurisprudence, but whether it counts as a philosophical endeavor is debatable.
Last edited by mickthinks on Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People are becoming MORE pro-war, not less. Look at the 'troop-worship' we see now. That's a recent thing. You have to wonder if most people are just empty vessels with no real mind of their own; who simply go whichever way the media blows them. In fact, it's obvious that really is the case.
All manufactured consent. There is also a progressive alliance, but the media is not bothering to tell you about it.
